Russia / 19 April 2011 / Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) / Adesso AG v OOO Orglot / A40-118252/10-69-961
| Country | Russia |
| Court | Russia, Федеральный арбитражный суд Московского округа (Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District) |
| Date | 19 April 2011 |
| Parties | Adesso AG v OOO Orglot |
| Case number | A40-118252/10-69-961 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V |
| Source |
http://kad.arbitr.ru (register of decisions of the RF arbitrazh courts) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 31 January 2010, an arbitral tribunal at the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) rendered an award ordering Russian company OOO Orglot (“Orglot”) to pay German company Adesso AG (“Adesso”) the amounts due under a contract for the provision of consulting services. Adesso sought and was granted recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Russia before the Moscow Arbitrazh Court (court of first instance). Orglot filed a cassation complaint with the Federal Arbitrazh Court for the Moscow District (court of cassation) on the grounds that (i) due to improper notification of the commencement of the arbitration, it was unable to present its case, (ii) the award of interest was beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, and (iii) the interest rate was disproportionate to the obligation breached, and therefore violated the public policy of the Russian Federation. The Federal Arbitrazh Court upheld the first instance ruling recognising and enforcing the award by relying on the provisions of the Code of Arbitration Procedure, the Law on International Commercial Arbitration, and Article V NYC. It held that the awarded interest derived from a contractual dispute that was covered by the arbitration clause. Moreover, the court held that the interest rate did not violate Russian public policy. In this regard it noted that (i) Orglot failed to exercise its right to challenge the amount and the reasonableness of the interest rate and (ii) since the governing law was English Law, Russian court practice was irrelevant. The Federal Arbitrazh Court further held that Orglot had been duly notified about the commencement of the arbitration proceedings and thus had not been deprived of the possibility of presenting its case. In this regard the court noted that Orglot did not deny (i) receiving notification from the LCIA of the commencement of the arbitration and (ii) being requested by the LCIA to participate in the arbitration proceedings and appointment the arbitral tribunal. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
